B787 and A350 efficiency

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › B787 and A350 efficiency

johno1234

3348 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2842

#310656 10-Nov-2023 08:02

Wow, there's a big difference between them and the 777!

Not sure how United has lower emissions with the same plane and faster flight than the American flight though...

AirNZ's 777 is a much roomier aircraft but wow, the emissions are significantly higher and presumably so are their costs.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#3157852 10-Nov-2023 08:14

Is it the same plane with the same engines though? And presumably the emissions is calculated per passenger, so if you carry more passengers you get a lower figure.

Handle9

11923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9674

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3157856 10-Nov-2023 08:24

The fuel efficiency is a big reason Air NZ is moving to a long haul fleet of only 787s, retiring the 777s.

It makes a big difference to making routes economically viable. The smaller aircraft and longer range help with that as well, they can get good load factors without having to sell as many tickets.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3157865 10-Nov-2023 09:18

I've always found the 777-300ER to be an exceptional plane, the 777-200 not as much, not as comfortable, but by some margin, the 787's are a far better and more comfortable plane to travel on than either of those two. I have yet to get on an A350, but would like to.

wlgspotter

334 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 40

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3157934 10-Nov-2023 10:07

frankv:

Is it the same plane with the same engines though? And presumably the emissions is calculated per passenger, so if you carry more passengers you get a lower figure.

Both AA and UA uses General Electric GEnx engines on their 787's so the engines should be the same, the difference in emissions could be due to the difference routing, which explains the difference in flying times, but not sure if the is taken into account for the website calculation emmissions above.

As for the comparison with Air NZ with uses the Boeing 777-300ERs, obviously the 787 and A350 being newer (generation) aircraft one would definitely expect their engines to be a lot more efficient. Also, the 777-300ER uses the GE90-115B engines which is (one of) the more powerful turbofan engines available today, rated at 115,000 lbf thrust as compared to the GEnx on the 787s which is rated at about 76,000 lbf takeoff thrust, so one would think that naturally the 787s (and A350s - A350s Rolls Royce engines are rated at about 84,000 lbf of thrust) would produce lower emissions.

hairy1

3352 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 644

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3157938 10-Nov-2023 10:12

There are a number of things here from the wing, carbon fibre use to the no engine bleed that the 787 uses. This happens with any newer generation aircraft.

The engine generation has the biggest impact on efficiency. You will see this when comparing A320 CEO with NEO.

My views (except when I am looking out their windows) are not those of my employer.

openmedia

3449 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 877

Trusted

#3157999 10-Nov-2023 12:47

networkn:

I've always found the 777-300ER to be an exceptional plane, the 777-200 not as much, not as comfortable, but by some margin, the 787's are a far better and more comfortable plane to travel on than either of those two. I have yet to get on an A350, but would like to.

Comfort wise I'd place the A350 over the B787, but it can depend on the airline and their configuration.

For example in Premium Economy I'd rather be on an Air NZ 787 than an SIA or Lufthansa A350.

Generally known online as OpenMedia, now working for Red Hat APAC as a Technology Evangelist and Portfolio Architect. Still playing with MythTV and digital media on the side.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

johno1234

3348 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2842

#3158015 10-Nov-2023 13:27

frankv:

Is it the same plane with the same engines though? And presumably the emissions is calculated per passenger, so if you carry more passengers you get a lower figure.

The B787s above are I believe all the same -9 but may have different engines. B777 has higher per seat emissions despite being a bigger plane with more seats. The B787 is a more modern design with lighter composite airframe.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3158032 10-Nov-2023 13:51

openmedia:

Comfort wise I'd place the A350 over the B787, but it can depend on the airline and their configuration.

For example in Premium Economy I'd rather be on an Air NZ 787 than an SIA or Lufthansa A350.

I flew an A380 Economy with Lufthansa between Singapore and Frankfurt, and it ensured I'll never fly economy (or likely business) with Lufthansa again unless there is literally no other choice. Worst economy product I've ever experienced by a significant margin.

I spent 21+ hours on an Air NZ 787-9 from NYC via Fiji (no offboarding) and to NZ earlier this year, and I'd happily fly economy with AirNZ on those 787-9's anytime. Obvs would prefer premium economy or business.

noroad

1025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Trusted

#3158955 13-Nov-2023 11:27

The B787s above are I believe all the same -9 but may have different engines. B777 has higher per seat emissions despite being a bigger plane with more seats. The B787 is a more modern design with lighter composite airframe.

I recently flew PE to Singapore via SIA A350 there and ANZ 787 back. The A350 was quieter but I am sure the ANZ 787 was more spacious/confortable, at least for premium economy anyway.

noroad

1025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Trusted

#3158958 13-Nov-2023 11:41

networkn:

I've always found the 777-300ER to be an exceptional plane, the 777-200 not as much, not as comfortable, but by some margin, the 787's are a far better and more comfortable plane to travel on than either of those two. I have yet to get on an A350, but would like to.

Last year I did a month in the US with a 12h ANZ 777 filght to San Francisco then the 17.5h New York ANZ 787 back to Auckland. I felt a lot better after the 17.5h on the 787 than the 12h on the 777 as the 787 is smoother and has much more comfortable pressurisation. Jet lag is always worse flying west but the pressurisation on the 787 and a350 makes a significant difference to recovery time. The 777X also has the better pressurisation even with a metal cabin, hopefully ANZ will order 777-9 at some point as while the 787-9 is great its right at the end of its legs for ultra long haul and has to be significantly de-loaded to achieve this distance. The on order 787's ANZ has will have the slightly more efficiant GE engines (as opposed to the current Rold Royce configured 787's) and some will be custom configured for ultra long haul but this significantly limits capacity. The 787-10 is getting to the end of its range with US West coast flights, let alone further ones.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3158959 13-Nov-2023 11:46

The biggest factor in fighting Jetlag for me, was changing my arrival time to arrive in evening or late PM, so I can pretty much have an early night and start in the morning.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

noroad

1025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Trusted

#3158963 13-Nov-2023 11:53

networkn:

I've always found the 777-300ER to be an exceptional plane, the 777-200 not as much, not as comfortable, but by some margin, the 787's are a far better and more comfortable plane to travel on than either of those two. I have yet to get on an A350, but would like to.

A350 is very nice, like the 787 but a little wider and quieter. The 777 is a great aircraft but the ultra bendy carbon wings on the 787/a350 smooth out the flight as well as the carbon body on the 787/a350 allow for higher pressurisation/humidity with less wear due to corrosion and pressurisation cycle stress. The 777X manages to achieve these things due to next generation metal composites in the body and new carbon wings. The 777X still carries more weight than the 787/a350 but makes up for this with the absolute latest/most efficiant engines. One day the a350 will be NEO'd with new engines and then it will be an unassalable lead over the 777 in efficiancy. The 787 will still compete OK against the a350 in the smaller capacity requirements. I predict the a350 will become the pre-eminant aircraft in long haul in the coming 20 years with the 787 close behind.